To look at it from Paramount's perspective this is what I see. They said they found that the attach rate was higher.

To put it another way. If you had PLAYER A & PLAYER B. PLAYER A sells 300 units and PLAYER B sells 100 units. On a media title for player A sells 100 units while the same title on player B sells 75 units of the same title. Now granted the numbers for player A software look better when compared directly to player B software. But if you look at the fact that while player A sold 25% more than Player B when it came to software, you also have to consider the fact that while there were three times as many players for player A only one out of every three people who owned player A bought the software title. Now Player B; it sold 25% less titles compared to the Player A numbers. Three out of four people bought a title that owned a player capable.

I would be catering to player B customers over time as they tended to buy more software overall as a group.

People may have purchased player A thinking that it is the way of the future. But the fact of the matter is when it comes down to it. People buy more media for player B on the whole than were buying for Player A when you look at attach rates. Paramount adjusted their marketing accordingly. They went with the group they felt would be more consistent and buy their media at the most constant rate. They also wouldn't have to do as extensive retooling to cater to what was a smaller segment of buys for a media that wasn't living up to their expectations!

My logic for the Paramount shift:

"$150M? Holy crap, that's more than we figured we'd make over the next year on both formats! Plus we get to keep the profits from actual disks sold? Where do I sign?"

To look at it from Paramount's perspective this is what I see. They said they found that the attach rate was higher.

To put it another way. If you had PLAYER A & PLAYER B. PLAYER A sells 300 units and PLAYER B sells 100 units. On a media title for player A sells 100 units while the same title on player B sells 75 units of the same title. Now granted the numbers for player A software look better when compared directly to player B software. But if you look at the fact that while player A sold 25% more than Player B when it came to software, you also have to consider the fact that while there were three times as many players for player A only one out of every three people who owned player A bought the software title. Now Player B; it sold 25% less titles compared to the Player A numbers. Three out of four people bought a title that owned a player capable.

I would be catering to player B customers over time as they tended to buy more software overall as a group.

People may have purchased player A thinking that it is the way of the future. But the fact of the matter is when it comes down to it. People buy more media for player B on the whole than were buying for Player A when you look at attach rates. Paramount adjusted their marketing accordingly. They went with the group they felt would be more consistent and buy their media at the most constant rate. They also wouldn't have to do as extensive retooling to cater to what was a smaller segment of buys for a media that wasn't living up to their expectations!



Here is my fancy math, they would sell 66% more copies of Shreck, and Transformers if they hadnt gone exclusive.

$150 million > 66% more sales of neutral movies.

Seems pretty simple.

My logic for the Paramount shift:

"$150M? Holy crap, that's more than we figured we'd make over the next year on both formats! Plus we get to keep the profits from actual disks sold? Where do I sign?"


QFT, I was going to post the exavt same thing next.:D

WEll, it is common knowledge that the studios believe that attach rate is important for a new format as are stand alone players. I thnk that price is what wound up being the biggest factor. They pretty much understand that in our Walmart world, $500 aren't going to get it done, and the PS3 and 360 are't going to do it either.

Apparently that $150m is worth more to Paramount than the goodwill they'll lose by shafting BD supporters that were told they'd get titles.

Apparently that $150m is worth more to Paramount than the goodwill they'll lose by shafting BD supporters that were told they'd get titles.

And it probably is. If Paramount switches back to neutral, it's not like a lot of consumers would hold such a grudge they wouldn't buy their movies.

The ill will in the industry would probably be a bigger burden than by consumers.

WEll, it is common knowledge that the studios believe that attach rate is important for a new format as are stand alone players. I thnk that price is what wound up being the biggest factor. They pretty much understand that in our Walmart world, $500 aren't going to get it done, and the PS3 and 360 are't going to do it either.


Or they took the $150 million because it is $150 million. Whatever winds your watch.

Apparently that $150m is worth more to Paramount than the goodwill they'll lose by shafting BD supporters that were told they'd get titles.

How many of those people are going to refuse to by Transformers on DVD, or rent it, or watch it on cable/sat? They have you either way. They went with the format they saw as the future, adn I suspect they know something that we haven't seen yet.

And it probably is. If Paramount switches back to neutral, it's not like a lot of consumers would hold such a grudge they wouldn't buy their movies.

The ill will in the industry would probably be a bigger burden than by consumers.


Knowing how executives think, they figured $150m now if worth infinite later, that may or may not come.

So to hell with the HDM market, do it.

Or they took the $150 million because it is $150 million. Whatever winds your watch.
$150 million dollars isn't **** to Viacom. Maybe you should be upset at the BDA for coming up short when it counted.

When they come back in February of '09 with Shrek 4 and Transformers 2, will they not be forgiven, or will Blu-ray owners cut off their nose and boycott them then?

C'mon, what's the answer here? :| They know they can come back eventually; the way they see it they're sitting out the boring part of the war and waiting for the profitable part.

And it probably is. If Paramount switches back to neutral, it's not like a lot of consumers would hold such a grudge they wouldn't buy their movies.

The ill will in the industry would probably be a bigger burden than by consumers.


Knowing how executives think, they figured $150m now is worth infinite later, that may or may not come.

So to hell with the HDM market, do it.

$150 million dollars isn't **** to Viacom. Maybe you should be upset at the BDA for coming up short when it counted.

I wonder that too. Why didn't the BDA offer them $500m? And Universal at least $1b?

I kinda think it's a form of ransom in all this, but I'd rather these damn companies pay a trillion just to end this stupid war and get HDM accepted.

$150 million dollars isn't **** to Viacom. Maybe you should be upset at the BDA for coming up short when it counted.

Once again, whatever makes you sleep better at night.

Apparently that $150m is worth more to Paramount than the goodwill they'll lose by shafting BD supporters that were told they'd get titles.

Bitter, party of one, your table is ready!

Once again, whatever makes you sleep better at night.
Formats concerning video formats don't effect my sleep. I was going to get to see the movie in HD anyway.

But money talks: Paramount and DreamWorks Animation together will receive about $150 million in financial incentives for their commitment to HD DVD, according to two Viacom executives with knowledge of the deal but who asked not to be identified.
Link to the above quote (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/technology/21disney.html?_r=1&oref=slogin).

IMHO, Microsoft/Toshiba/Paramount wanted to counter the possible rumored upcoming neutrality of Universal and the Weinstein Co. in January 2008.

Paul

My logic for the Paramount shift:

"$150M? Holy crap, that's more than we figured we'd make over the next year on both formats! Plus we get to keep the profits from actual disks sold? Where do I sign?"

Exactly. 18 months for $150,000,000.00, much easier money short term even though it cuts off the vast majority or early adopters.

Universal have already said they are staying with HD DVD, they would have stayed quiet if someone was up.

To look at it from Paramount's perspective this is what I see. They said they found that the attach rate was higher.

To put it another way. If you had PLAYER A & PLAYER B. PLAYER A sells 300 units and PLAYER B sells 100 units. On a media title for player A sells 100 units while the same title on player B sells 75 units of the same title. Now granted the numbers for player A software look better when compared directly to player B software. But if you look at the fact that while player A sold 25% more than Player B when it came to software, you also have to consider the fact that while there were three times as many players for player A only one out of every three people who owned player A bought the software title. Now Player B; it sold 25% less titles compared to the Player A numbers. Three out of four people bought a title that owned a player capable.

I would be catering to player B customers over time as they tended to buy more software overall as a group.

People may have purchased player A thinking that it is the way of the future. But the fact of the matter is when it comes down to it. People buy more media for player B on the whole than were buying for Player A when you look at attach rates. Paramount adjusted their marketing accordingly. They went with the group they felt would be more consistent and buy their media at the most constant rate. They also wouldn't have to do as extensive retooling to cater to what was a smaller segment of buys for a media that wasn't living up to their expectations!

The fact that

A) Current owners of player B buy X titles per month

Does not mean that

B) All future owners of player B will buy X titles per month

My logic for the Paramount shift:

"$150M? Holy crap, that's more than we figured we'd make over the next year on both formats! Plus we get to keep the profits from actual disks sold? Where do I sign?"


By my math, $150m is roughly equivalent to every dollar consumers have spent on the HD-DVD format since inception.

If HD-DVD has sold 2M discs at $30 each, 200k Xbox 360 Add ons at $200 and 200k Stand alone players at $400, that comes out to $180M.

By my math, $150m is roughly equivalent to every dollar consumers have spent on the HD-DVD format since inception.

If HD-DVD has sold 2M discs at $30 each, 200k Xbox 360 Add ons at $200 and 200k Stand alone players at $400, that comes out to $180M.

JACKPOT!

Bitter, party of one, your table is ready!

This is a good example of the Personnal Attack logical fallacy. The writer chose to attack his opponent instead of respond to the argument that Paramount cares more about money than the goodwill of one subsegment of their potential customers.

Paramount cares more about money than the goodwill of one subsegment of their potential customers.

You mean like Target, Blockbuster, 21st, Disney, etc?

How many of those people are going to refuse to by Transformers on DVD, or rent it, or watch it on cable/sat? They have you either way. They went with the format they saw as the future, adn I suspect they know something that we haven't seen yet.

This is the format Paramount saw in their future: $###,###,###.##.

To OP: Why would Paramount care anything about current attach rates. I don't think they would care if people bought disks to wear as earrings, as long as the bought them, they care about sales.

This whole argument that Paramount looked at the market conditions and concluded that they should support HD DVD exclusively is ludicrous, from a business perspective, outside the payoff scenario that is.

But please, feel free to try again.

This is the format they saw in their future: $###,###,###.##

lol.